Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Years with no hurricane article

The following years since 1950 have no hurricane article:

  • 1987 (Possible storms include Arlene or Emily)
  • 1986 (One possible storm is Charley)
  • 1982 (Alberto or Beryl)
  • 1981 (Possible Dennis)
  • 1978 (Amelia with 30 deaths, or Cat. 4 Greta)
  • 1976 (Belle or Emmy)
  • 1973 (Brenda with 10 deaths and thousands homeless, Delia with $15 million in damage, Ellen?)
  • 1968 (Abby, Candy, or Gladys? not much here)
  • 1962 (Possible Daisy)
  • 1958 (Cleo or Helene)
  • 1956 (Betsy, Flossy, or Greta)
  • 1953 (Alice, Barbara, or Carol? Not much here)
  • 1951 (Able or Charlie)

Just in case every season article should have an article, there is the list. Recently done ones include 1984, 1993, and 1997. Hurricanehink 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Some years may have to go without an article. 1953, 1968 and 1973 are examples (unless there is a strong consensus)...and just wait until we get down to 1914, there was only one storm that year and it was a weak tropical storm! Does that get an article by default? CrazyC83 16:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking just back to 1950 will be fine. Before then was too unknown. You may be right about those three years, though it would be cool to have every season have a notable storm with its article. Hurricanehink 16:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see a need to have an article in every season. We shouldn't be creating them just to create them. I am strongly against that and always will be. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I just thought it would be neat to specialize one specific storm for each season. It will probably never happen, but it can't hurt to bring it up. Hurricanehink
My thought for 1978: Subtropical Storm One (1978), since we are on the topic of extremely weird events with Zeta forming. CrazyC83
Not a bad idea. There might be enough information on MWR as well. I uploaded a picture here, so this might be doable. Mention some off season trivia. I vote yes for this one. Hurricanehink 00:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Archived from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Hurricanehink

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Government?

I was thinking, maybe we could have a government for this project. We could have elections the first day of each month. The person with a certain position would be in charge of a certain part of this WikiProject. Sound Interesting? Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do or don't support this please sign your name:

  • Yes
  1. Icelandic Hurricane #12.
  • No
  1. Hurricanehink

Comments

It sounds interesting, but I think it should be more like a board of directors. Basically, there's about 10 of us that make up most of the entire project. If this goes through, there should be some basic requirements. Here's what I think. (rm qualifications, see below). Sound good for qualifications? Hurricanehink 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I qualify. Hurray me! We should also make a userbox for the members and a list. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
We already have a WikiProject userbox:
Cyclone Catarina from the ISS on March 26 2004.JPG This user is a member of the Tropical cyclone WikiProject.
.
Those qualifications may sound good now, but I think we may find that we will have to up the anty a bit down the road. Like making it so that you have to have been a member of Wikipedia for at least 3 months and have a certain number of edits (say 500). Just fair warning. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, those are good as well and should be added. Hurricanehink 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
"(basically, you need a good understanding of hurricanes)"...and have reliable sources to back up your information. Although that's subjective, it should be made known that you will be expected to provide links to reliable sources that back up your information, even if you're just answering a newbie's question on their talk page. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on! Three months! I'm only 16 days from that! How could you add that! Icelandic Hurricane #12 00:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
LOL, don't worry. By the time this is even official, I'm sure you'll be there. Eric, if you're answering a simple Newbie question (like what's the difference between a hurricane and a typhoon), you probably don't have to reference it in the talk page, unless you meant by linking to where you could find more (like linking to tropical cyclone). If it's that, then very true. Hurricanehink 00:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

When will this be official? When we get a certain amount of yeses? When its qualifications are decided? When? Icelandic Hurricane #12 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I say when we get 6 yesses. It's qualifications are decided once all 6 people agree to them. Below are the qualifications so far, which is where you vote yes or not. Hurricanehink 00:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

1) More than 100 of your edits are for a Atlantic hurricane article pre-2000 or in another basin

This may sound a little steep, but I believe that a focus of an official should not be for present Atlantic hurricane articles, rather a well-rounded individual. Hurricanehink

2) You need to be a member of the Wikiproject

Obviously. Hurricanehink

3) You must have created at least 1 tropical cyclone article that is still in existence

This is to show that you don't just contribute little things, but that you also take the time to research an article. Hurricanehink

4) Most of the work you have done has not been reverted

This qualification will limit those who have made controversial edits, and will be at the discretion of the committee to define most. Hurricanehink

5) You must be willing and able to answer questions about tropical cyclones from newbies, as well as be able to direct them to exising articles.

This is a must. Officials need to be able to thoroughly explain their topic and show where they got their information. If they ask something like, "Do hurricanes occur in Middle Earth" (which I've gotten before), you should be able to explain why or why not to the best of your ability, even if there is no source for it. (If anyone's curious, here are some bad questions I got, to which I answered here). Hurricanehink

6) You must be a Wikipedia member for 3 months

This is mainly to show your committment for the site and that you will stay here. Hurricanehink
Hink, I agree that you wouldn't need to cite for simple questions like the one you listed above but you should cite if you're giving something like damage figures and stuff. And it shouldn't be just newbies. If you're leading the project, you should respond to pertinent questions from everybody. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Very true. I was just thinking of the newbies because that seems to be what I get. So, now that we have the qualifications, now we should decide what to do. If you are a director, or whatever, what should we do or be able to do? Hurricanehink 03:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the usefulness of this. We shouldn't just create a position so that we have one; if we create positions it should be for a specific purpose. What will these project leaders do? — jdorje (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea, but, like Jdorje and I said, what would be the point of it? It seems like whoever is a member of the wikiproject is already an official. Icelandic hurricane, what is the point of such an official? Hurricanehink 19:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
To be in charge of a certain part of the project. Such as, Jdorje should be head of track maps. Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure about the usefulness of it either. We all have good ideas of who does what here (e.g. Jdorje is the one who supplies track maps and the like, Hink is very involved in article assessment / peer reviewing, Eric is the fact police, I am the one who works with WP:1.0, etc...) but I'm not convinced it is necessary to "codify" it. I don't oppose the idea, but I don't really see the benefit myself. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, it did intrigue me a bit but I see your point and completely agree with it. So I now have no opinion on this matter whatsoever. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you think some people are in charge of certain things, shouldn't they get the credit? They should be recognized more for the things they do. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Most of us (I assume) aren't here to get recognized. We just like helping out and improving Wikipedia as a whole. Like Eric, it doesn't matter either way. Hurricanehink 23:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, how come that Esparanza thing has a government? Icelandic Hurricane #12 00:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That government is basically the equivalent to this Wikiproject page. I change my mind, and vote no on this sort of thing. Sorry Icelandic hurricane, it sounded like a good idea, but when you think about it, we already are the government. Hurricanehink 03:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Since it was brought up... the Esperanza leadership has more to do with making decisions as to which programs to put into effect for a large membership. I should know... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of interest and the length of this section, can we merge it? The page is getting very long. Hurricanehink 16:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Longest Articles in WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

1.- Hurricane Katrina

2.- Hurricane Gaston

3.- Hurricane Floyd

4.- Hurricane Georges

5.- Hurricane Rita

6.- Hurricane Wilma

7.- Hurricane Dennis

8.- Hurricane Lili (1996)

9.- Hurricane Hugo

10.-Hurricane Stan

Storm05 18:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does this data come from? — jdorje (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Our goal should be for this list to line up 1:1 with the list of most notable tropical cyclones. Of course this is hard since newer storms always have more data. But there are some very notable storms - like Andrew - that should be on this list but aren't. And there are some storms - like Gaston and Lili - that have more detail than is justified. — jdorje (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That list is wrong. Of those, the list is Katrina (98), Wilma (37), Rita (36), Floyd (25), Georges (24.5, though it is under construction), Dennis (17.5), Stan (13.6), Gaston (13), Hugo (11.67), and Lili (8.5). A quick check shows the 1900 Galveston Hurricane is 22, Ivan is 29, and Frances is 17.66. Jdorje, that's a good idea. We should make up a list of the most notable storms, and that could be another mini-project. Hurricanehink 21:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, we already had an argument over notability in List of notable Atlantic hurricanes. Of course we couldn't agree on the most notable storms, but it should give a pretty good idea of what's out there. However it is much easier to find information on storms since 1995, and on storms that impacted the U.S. It is unlikely, for instance, that Hurricane Janet will ever catch up with Hurricane Floyd in level of detail, even though it is a more notable storm — but we can hope that it will catch up with Hurricane Gaston. — jdorje (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Why all the interest in Gaston? Sure it did some damage, but it was still less notable than Hurricane Cindy (2005) which everyone seems to want to merge. — jdorje (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Gaston. I don't really see the point of it. It caused some localized damage, and I feel badly for those in Richmond who were greatly flooded, but it really wasn't that notable. I'll keep to my old philosophy; lots of information does not equal notable. Judge the storm, not the article. I know others think otherwise, but that is my personal belief. I was originally against Cindy, but based on its damage figure I'm fine with it staying. About the notable ones, you are completely right, and it's ashame. Based on its effects, Janet should be just as informative as Floyd, but due to when it was, that's never going to happen. I suppose we're getting there. Floyd was re-done, and Georges is almost re-done. Other low-quality yet notable articles, mark my words, will get the information they deserve at some point in time. Hurricanehink 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I would have wanted to merge Gaston too if it didn't have twice the substance that Cindy did. When I first read it, gramatical errors aside, it had much more information than the Cindy article did. Still does. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Over the last couple of days I've undertaken a categorization project which would have boggled my mind had I actually stopped to think about it ahead of time...creating well over 100 categories and adding maybe 1000 new categorizations to articles. This work is ongoing; I'd guess I'm 60-75% done. In no particular order:

  • I went through every top-level and second-level category (Category:Tropical cyclones and its children) and cleaned them out. Cyclone articles were moved out of top-level categories and into the basin and season categories. I created new categories as needed for each basin (Category:Pacific typhoons, Category:Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclones, etc.). I checked for entries listed in the wrong alphabetical order and fixed them. I also re-categorized the categories slightly so that everything fits in a tree under Category:Tropical cyclones (though many articles and categories are also categorized outside of this tree, for instance).
  • I made new categories to help people in finding articles to work on. See Category:Hurricane articles needing attention and its children (yeah, I know, it should be "Tropical cyclone articles needing attention").
  • I categorized every Atlantic, EPacific, and WPacific season article. To make this easier I created {{Atlantic hurricane season categories}} and other templates (one per basin, obviously, though all basins aren't taken care of yet). (I did not go back before the 1880s since the categorization for multi-season articles hasn't quite been worked out.)
  • I created categories for every Atlantic, EPacific, and WPacific season (to match the categorization I'd just done). Here I used another template, {{Atlantic hurricane season}}.
  • I created a new category, Category:Retired Atlantic hurricanes to work on as my testbed for categorization. I categorized all retired hurricanes (yes, I know it's a name that's retired not a hurricane...particularly in some older seasons before retirement was worked out properly) into this category.
  • I went through all Atlantic hurricane articles (starting with the retired ones, then the cat5s, then going through all of them). I included {{hurricane}} in each. I added {{Template:infobox hurricane needed}} (a new template I created for categorization) where no infobox was present. I categorized each by season.
  • I did the same for the Pacific typhoon articles (and I'm now working through the Pacific hurricane ones).
  • For disambiguation articles (already categorized as, e.g., Category:Atlantic hurricanes) I've added them to the categories for each season. This has some disadvantages since someone looking at the season category might be drawn to a disambiguation page that isn't actually helpful for them. However it is pretty cool to look at (for instance) Category:1997_Atlantic_hurricane_season and see each storm listed.

TODO

  • Go through each article and categorize it by strength (e.g., Category:Tropical storms or Category:Category 1 hurricanes). For west pacific storms (which don't use categories), we need to decide whether we want to use this system or a different categorization (typhoon versus super-typhoon). We also must decide whether these categories should be separated by basin.
  • Figure out how to handle other basins. The N Indian ocean can probably be handled on its own in the same way as the current three (but emptier since we have much less data). Southern hemisphere basins are a little trickier, particularly since the pacific and indian tend to run together (are these the same basin or not?). Currently the categories are Category:Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons, which I didn't create but seems okay; I moved the south atlantic articles (all 1 of them) in with these. One problem here is because these don't fit a single year (e.g., 2004-05_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season) categorization outside the tropical-cyclone tree is a bit harder (does it go in Category:2004, Category:2005, or both?).
  • Finish up the current categorization efforts on other basins. As I said I'm working through the EPac now.
  • Figure out how to do more categorization automatically. For instance the infobox already has "2005 Atlantic hurricane season" in it; we should be able to fit Category:2005 Atlantic hurricane season into the template to have it entered automatically.

Jdorje 04:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Western Pacific basin does classify storms by category (per the Saffir-Simpson scale; with 75mph (Cat 1 hurricane) being a Cat 1 typhoon etc - see the 2005 Pacific typhoon season - it lists the scale), only it's more commonly not referred to by categories, and only by typhoon vs. super typhoon (>130 knots)... -- NSLE | Talk 10:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
OK. In that case the problem is simply that the categories are misnamed (they use "hurricane" instead of "tropical cyclone"). Jdorje 21:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Just want to note: the Atlantic and Pacific basins have different criteria for categorizing tropical storms (in the Pacific, storms have to be a little bit stronger to reach the different categories as opposed to in the Atlantic, reflecting the different nature of the two oceans).
Mkieper 22:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
No, Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale has 119, 154, 178, 210 and 250 km/h minimum sustained winds for Category 1 through 5 hurricanes respectively; the typhoon scale has 119, 154, 178, 210, 240 and 250 km/h for Category 1 through 4 typhoons, Super Typhoon and Category 5 typhoon respectively; I don't know where you're getting the above from. -- NSLE | Talk 00:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Update

  • I finished filling out the existing categorizations.
  • I made sure all hurricane articles are categorized by strength. I created new categories Category:Hurricanes of unknown strength and Category:Tropical cyclones by strength.
  • I filled out some categories for the N Indian ocean basin.
  • I started working on the S Hemispher basins, but here I didn't get far. The hurricane articles are no problem, but the season articles are. Currently there are three season articles, all with different naming convention. I feel the convention should be 2005-2006 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. However other articles call it seasons (which is just plain wrong, but an easy mistake for northerners to make) or 2005-06 (which will be fine until we get to 1999-2000, 1899-1900, 1500-1799, 0000-999, etc.).
I started the S. Hemisphere basin pages, so I should be able to help out in that area. I think it should be kept as 2005-06 and for the turn of the century it should be 1999-2000. Those articles may never happen though, I spent a lot of time just trying to find information on the 2004-05 season. --Holderca1 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Jdorje 07:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Qualifications for new articles

What should be the qualifications for new articles? Ignoring the text requirment (because any topic could have enough information for a new article), how should we decide what articles are worth it and what should be merged back to a seasonal article (if one exists)? Here are a basic outline that will be fine tuned for qualifications:

Atlantic

  • Over a certain dollar figure in damage
  • Over a certain number of deaths (50 in U.S, figure differs elsewhere)
  • Extremely notable (Longevity, extremely unusual location like Vince or Alice)
  • Any retired hurricane (already done)

South Atlantic

Eastern Pacific

  • Deadly landfalling hurricane (Liza, Pauline, 1959 storm)
  • Longevity (John)
  • Any retired hurricane (already done)
  • Epic damage (Kenna)

Western Pacific

  • Important Record holder (Tip)

(See below for possible ideas)

  • Over a certain number of deaths

North Indian and Southern Hemisphere

  • Over a certain dollar figure for damage
  • Over a certain number of deaths

For Western Pacific, there seems to be no continuity. As with any other basin, current storms get an article without much thought. Haitang (which was a Cat 5 before weakening and hitting Taiwan, only 7 deaths), Khanun (only 14 deaths), or Nabi (21 deaths) are perfect examples of this. Maybe it is just my raging anti-sub pages attitude, but I am sure there are other typhoons much more deserving than these 3. The problem is that few know or care about the area until a big one comes. In the last 10 years, 13 storms with over 100 deaths didn't have an article (2 of which I redirected back to their seasonal articles), while all of the recent typhoon Articles caused less than 25 deaths. Were their tracks notable? Not particularly. There weren't overwhelmingly damaging. So why, aside from that they were current, do these have articles? I just want to reach some sort of concensus.

In addition, should storms like Forrest, whose record isn't terribly important but still a record, have their own article when the record and history could simply be mentioned in the seasonal article?

Feel free to edit the list above to more accurate qualifications. Hurricanehink 03:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't want to too my own horn here or something, but I agree and would think that this season in the WPac (awfully quiet!) the only real "noteworthy" storm was Typhoon Longwang, for the fact it has killed the most people of all the storms this season, and caused quite a bit of damage. Then again, Longwang could still probably be expanded a bit more, with an impact section or something. I say that a NWPac storm should cause at least, say, 75 to 80 deaths or US$50 million in damage, or form at an awkward position to get an article. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 05:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Why would you want to ignore the text requirement? The text requirement is the only one that's really neutral. Damage, deaths, and longevity are all just estimates by whatever source you happen to trust (and most current hurricane articles have NO sources for these values). In my opinion the SOLE criteria should be article quality (not length, but quality). And yes, the Forrest article is entirely useless, except for the pictures. Jdorje 08:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I am saying that just about anything could have enough for an article. It just would be really boring and repetitive. You could say all the circumstances on its formation, why it moved where it did, elaborate like hell, and have a long article for a pointless storm. We should have a reasoning for making an article other than the text requirment. We need some sort of continuity so we don't make too many articles. This way we won't create too many articles in the coming years. I am not saying getting rid of all the pointless articles (just some), but having a concensus so we don't give an article for every new storm. Hurricanehink 14:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Surely. That's why my criteria is article quality, not article length. By these standards I agree (for instance) that Arlene should have been merged back in, but I don't think Cindy should be. In particular, no amount of lenghth of text on storm history is enough to justify a separate article, since the storm history can be summed up with a single picture. But if there's enough info on the impact, then that can justify an article. Jdorje 23:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
You have a point about quality. However, if the quality happens to a copy and paste of the seasonal article, I say it should go until either more information is available or more is actually written. Plus, what about Southern Hemisphere storms? When and if someone does a historical archive, what do we do about all of the storm pages? I had the same dillema with the Pacific Typhoon articles. Should those articles be merged in (with the exception of extremely notable) or should they remain as is? Hurricanehink 20:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we agree, for the sake of archiving this section, that the 2 requirements are:

  • Sufficient information
  • Notable enough for its own article

Though notable can be disputed, use discretion. Here I define what I think is notable enough.

Longevity: Longevity is typically rather boring for its own article, and only record-long storms should get it. John (longest worldwide), Ginger (2nd longest Atlantic, was long believed to be the longest until re-analysis), and 1899 San Ciraco (extremely damaging and long). Alberto, the longest in August with a big loop, was deleted because it was not extreme on its own.

Strength: Category 5 hurricanes should not automatically get their own articles. If it was a fish storm as a weak Category 5, then it should remain a section in the seasonal article. Not unless it was extremely intense or damaging at sea should it have an article.

Damage/Deaths: As of now, nearly every storm that caused more than $500 million in damage has their own article. If a storm causes only $60 million in damage, no deaths, and made landfall somewhere, it will likely not have its own article unless there is another factor about the storm that made it notable. Hurricane Bret from 1999 is an example of this. It was the least damaging major hurricane since 1964, and hit the only unpopulated area on the United States Atlantic/Gulf coastline. Deaths is a different story. Old hurricanes that were very deadly do not have information. Every hurricane since 1950 that killed more than 50 is at least on the suggestion list.

Off-season: Typically, off-season storms don't get an article, mainly due to lack of effects from the storms. Those that were especially notable like Alice (2 calendar year hurricane), 1952 Groundhog Day Storm (Only Feb. storm and made U.S. landfall), or Ana (Only April storm, 1 or 2 deaths) get one.

Just use discretion, and wonder this when creating an article:

  • Can this information be added to the article?
  • Is this storm worthy of having an article: notable enough or enough information.

Are these rules sufficient? Hurricanehink 17:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but notability is a fairly loose term. Different people may have different definitions of "notable". This is the only reason that I see why it has failed to enter official Wikipedia policy. That's why we need to come to a consensus on exactly what is and what is not notable. We also need to have a criterium for offseason storms. My view is that not all of them deserve their own articles. Intensity should not be a main factor for article creation unless it's a record-holding intensity (a la Tip). Damage post-1950: $100 million minimum (sorry Alex). Pre-1950: $40 million minimum. Deaths pre-1950: 100-150 minimum; there just isn't enough info for storms that did anything less. 1950-1970: 50-100 minimum depending on availability of information. Post 1970: 30 minimum. Those are my typical criterium. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, now for the sake of archiving it, can we agree (like we are) judge on a storm-by-storm basis? This page is getting a little long. Hurricanehink 02:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Storm articles

I have recently gone through almost all the storm articles.

  • I added structure where needed. Usually a short summary, then a "storm history" section, then an "impact" section. Longer articles generally already had their own structure which I didn't mess with (except sometimes to rename "effects" as "impact").
  • I improved grammar, spelling, and wikification. My guideline for dates is that the first date in each paragraph, and the first date in each month, must have the full entry (like "December 3"). Each following date may be shortened ("the 4th"). Previously some articles were confusing because halfway through the article it gets hard to follow what month you're in.

Jdorje 22:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and next up: making sure every article has a storm track. I now have the technology to create storm tracks to add to every article, and with the help of a bot in future I hope to be able to update these storm tracks easily (as the best-track data is improved). I may someday use a bot to upload a storm track for every storm, to add tracks to lots of season pages...this would be rather pretty (imagine 1988 Atlantic hurricane season with a bunch of small storm track images) but the storm-track generator isn't ready for it yet. Jdorje 22:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Some time ago we discussed adding new fields to the infoboxes. Well, I went ahead and added the pressure to the hurricane infobox. I also used some template magic to create Category:Incomplete hurricane infoboxes which I believe should become populated with the articles that have no pressure in their infobox (it's empty now; I think it will be built slowly as the caches are replaced). Next, I'd like to rename "total damages (USD)" as "total damages"; the "USD" is irrelevant since the field has to include the units anyway (including the year) and USD may not always be the best choice; this should be possible to accomplish with a smooth transition using some more template magic. Jdorje 20:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, might not have so many ones without pressures now. Still a great idea. Question: How will the caches be replaced? Mind you, I am more or less computer illiterate, so I am not sure what it means. Do we have do change them one by one, just change the infobox template, or is it automatic? Hurricanehink 21:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I really don't know what causes the categories to be updated. I'm guessing several levels of cache need to be regenerated. This will happen automatically periodically I guess but I have no idea how long it will take. Once one of the pages using the template is actually edited it should be updated immediately in the category. Eventually they should all make there way there...we're not in any big rush here so we can just wait for them to show up. Jdorje 21:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Cool, and I did notice some pages showing that category at the bottom (some WPAC ones, Catarina). Something weird happened, though. In the list of Hurricane articles without pictures or infoboxes, they show every last hurricane season and quite a few hurricane articles that already have pics and infoboxes. I assume that problem will also be solved automatically? Hurricanehink 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Images for each storm

I am in the (long) process of trying to upload an image of each storm in Atlantic history. Obviously there are older ones that won't, but I am trying to get, let's say, a lot of them. A lot of storms, particularly retired storms, have them, but what about the lesser storms that don't have articles? The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article used this in a great way, by having the storm track and storm pic right next to each other. If an image helps the reader understand the storm, then why not? I have gone ahead and put what I propose on the 2003 and 2004 Atlantic season talk pages. I am interested to see what is the most recent season in which not every storm has a pic... Is what I am doing fine? A waste? Comments welcomed. Hurricanehink 00:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Navy site (all images PD, {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}) has images back to 1997. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks, but some of their image archives are temporarily down. Hurricanehink 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I got an example. The 1994 Atlantic hurricane season has an image for each storm. What should we do with them? Should we have a repeat of 2005? That is, having the storm track and image for each storm. Obviously, this can't go back very far, but it helps people understand the storms better. Hurricanehink 02:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should show a satellite image and storm track for every storm whenever possible. Jdorje 02:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I have 2 years completely done (1994 and 2000). Does Alberto in 2000 work? I will go ahead and do the rest. Will you be able to get the storm tracks for 2000? Hurricanehink 16:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, what do you mean by "completely done"? I see only a few pictures. Jdorje 17:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Check their talk pages. I should have said that. Every tropical storm or hurricane has a picture in those 2 seasons. For 2000, I went ahead and put the pics in like 2005. Hurricanehink
I uploaded 2000 and 1994. I also uploaded 2004; I think we should be moving chronologically here. Jdorje 21:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
That's just what they're expecting though... Just kidding. That sounds good. I'll try to fill in the gap. Hurricanehink 22:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Design

Ok, before we go further with this, I think we need to stop and think about it a little bit. First of all, we should be using a template for the little storm picture table, that way we can resize or restructure it later if needed. The table's a little ugly as it is (it is asymmetric and has white space for seemingly no reason), and someone could probably fix this with a little wikitable magic. Something like {{storm pics|maintext|image1|text1|image2|text2}} is pretty lengthy, but probably still worthwhile. We could in theory make it even shorter if we use more clever templating, but this would also cut down on the flexibility of the gallery. Jdorje 07:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
That would be {{storm pics}}. Jdorje 07:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Okeydoke. 2004 done, working on 2003, and will get 2002 later. I am currently trying to align them so they don't overlap by adding more information. I know that every screen is different, but more info can't hurt either way. Hurricanehink 15:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Got them. Now on to 2001's pictures. Hurricanehink 16:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Uploaded 1995-1999. Jdorje 06:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Uploaded 1990-1993. Jdorje 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

{{User WPTC}} gives

Cyclone Catarina from the ISS on March 26 2004.JPG This user is a member of the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject.

NSLE (T+C+CVU) 10:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying trying to add it to my user page but it conflicts with my contents box. Is there a way to fix this? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Done NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Hurricane Katrina has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote and help us bring it up to featured standard! Vote here. --Fenice 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Tropical cyclone

Template:Tropical cyclone has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Tropical cyclone. Thank you. --Golbez 22:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad News

Ive got bad news, the the NCDC website is down because I cant get any storm pics. Storm05 15:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed that the other day. It seems to be off and on. Hurricanehink 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It's been down for the past several days and it's beginning to annoy the crap out of me. I've been trying to replace images in my hurricane archive and I can't do that when the GIBBS site is down. HSEI site is back up though. It moved to a new URL and was down for almost a week. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It's back up, for now. Hurricanehink 01:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You wont Beleive this!

But look what the people at Uncyclopeida did to the 2005 storms! ---> [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Storm05 17:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually like "Silly string attacks the Atlantic coast" the best. [6]Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The ironic thing is their Katrina article is actually better organized then wikipedia's... — jdorje (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pre 1850 tracks

File:Great Havana Hurricane Track (estimated).JPG
Map plotting the track and intensity of the storm according to the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale

I created an estimated track of the Great Havana Hurricane of 1846. The track nearly matches what is described in the article. (note, I had to use a unisys map since I do not know how to work that storm path generator). Storm05 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no best track data, there is no basis for such a map; it constitutes original research. — jdorje (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Then what happens if the original research comes up short then, if so can we make estimated track maps for pre 1851 storms because im planning to make a track map for the Great September Gale of 1815, the 1837 racers storm ,the Norfolk-Long Island Hurricane of 1821, Great Hurricane of 1780 and the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635. Storm05 20:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
That looks good, but how do we know if it is correct? The article says the hurricane hit Cuba then Key West, then Cedar Key, but yours has it making landfall south of Tampa Bay. There's also no evidence for a Florida mainland Cat. 5 landfall. Something like that would be fine for the talk pages, though. In addition, here is an estimated track map. It is by no means official, but see how different yours and its are? They are simply estimates, and nothing is official, meaning, sorry, it can't go in the actual article. Hurricanehink 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
No, we cannot make estimated track maps based on our own research. What we can do is pester the NHC to continue the best-tracks backwards. I suspect that in time they will do so anyway. — jdorje (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Assesment Colors

Why the assesment colors keep changing all the time?, like the FA tab which used to be yellow now its Green and the A Class tab which used to be gray with red letters now its Blue. Storm05 17:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure... Hurricanehink 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
{{FA-Class}} is blue and {{A-Class}} is green because they were changed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, and they are Wikipedia-wide, not just for this WikiProject. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Eloise

Hurricane Eloise lists Eloise as having had 130 mph winds. However, this is impossible by the current system of measurement; knot measurements are cut off by intervals of 5 kt, and 110 kt is 125 mph while 115 kt is 135 mph. I don't know if we should change it or not. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 27 March 2006 @ 22:51 (UTC)

Actually, 115 knots is 132.25 mph which "should" round to 130 mph. However, the NHC seems to often round it up to 135 mph, probably because the cutoff for Cat4 is 131 mph. AFAICT there is no way to tell which is which just by looking at the best track info. — jdorje (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, my fault. I fixed it. Hurricanehink 23:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at this!

The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season on biocrawler.com (a rip off of wikipedia) is incomplete. Storm05 19:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it's just an archive of an old version of the article. — jdorje (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing out of the ordinary: see the list of sites that do that at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That mirror site should update that article. Funnybunny 21:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious edits

Could someone have another look at the edits by 209.242.50.115 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)? Originally, they looked like good faith, but now I'm becoming more suspicious of them... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, just reviewed his edits on Dennis's article and they look suspicious to me too. (I mean, for goodness sakes, who cares about the exact time when Dennis became a hurricane?) NSLE (T+C) at 03:14 UTC (2006-04-07)
The 5:27 PM part (the most recent edit) is certainly bogus. While I myself would be interested in the exact time when Dennis became a hurricane, the NHC does not give out this information. All we know are the 6-hourly positions. — jdorje (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Universal Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina

Some crazy user had created a VERY redundant article with next to no or redundant infomation. Storm05 16:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 03:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)